casperwb said:
As to weather sealing, I spend a lot of time on the ocean and we have nitrogen filled, waterproof, fogproof binoculars.
Imagine : Nikon 300mm f2.8n If Ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $3xxx.xx
Nikon 400mm f4n if ed AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $4xxx.xx
No zooms, just primes as these should be easier to do.
for the everyday use, add:
Nikon 35mm and 50mm f1.4G AF-S nitrogen waterproof fogproof $650-$750 each

Keep dreaming! (It's not a bad dream though.) The really good field scopes run $3000+ for a approx F11 lens with weather sealing and such. I bet a 300mm 2.8 would run in the $10,000+ range easily. Hell a Sea & Sea housing for a D300 runs about $3000. One would have to give a lot of Fstops for it to be reasonable cost.

Splashes, even running water over a camera at a certain level and above, will not effect too much. Hell, iPhones can be held under a sink for a few minutes with no issues. Submerging is another story. That is the crux of technology.

TaoTeJared said:
Go to YouTube to watch it and read the comments. 1.5+ years later and the poster says it works fine and has had no issues with it.

There is a video out there showing someone's D300 in down pouring rain with a cover on it. Then by morning the cover blew off. It was some sort of scientific study with a timer on the camera watching some animal in the Amazon. 15 hours in the rain and it was still firing away like it was set to.

I would be scared to do it but it does not surprise me that it works fine.

Try watching this one and not cringe. Search You Tube for "Nikon D90 vs Canon 550D Durability Test (Part 1)"

Surprised that a Sigma lens took that beating. I thought it would be something more pro, maybe a 17-55 lens.

casperwb said:
As to weather sealing, I spend a lot of time on the ocean and we have nitrogen filled, waterproof, fogproof binoculars.

would'nt it be nice if they could work on lenses with these features, not all, just those that you take out for wildlife, on the ocean, or such.

of course, all these lens would have a groove machined into the mounting flange with a replacable silicone rubber O-ring, which would have to be changed every x amount of years to give us a good seal at the F mount.

what do you think, will this be on your wish list?

Nikon does make binoculars, so I'm pretty sure Nikon could do it, it's just that it's a very specialized piece of equipment, there might not be too many takers.

of course, all these lens would have a groove machined into the mounting flange with a replacable silicone rubber O-ring, which would have to be changed every x amount of years to give us a good seal at the F mount.

Go to YouTube to watch it and read the comments. 1.5+ years later and the poster says it works fine and has had no issues with it.

There is a video out there showing someone's D300 in down pouring rain with a cover on it. Then by morning the cover blew off. It was some sort of scientific study with a timer on the camera watching some animal in the Amazon. 15 hours in the rain and it was still firing away like it was set to.

I would be scared to do it but it does not surprise me that it works fine.

Try watching this one and not cringe. Search You Tube for "Nikon D90 vs Canon 550D Durability Test (Part 1)"

Its just funny to watch someone hosing down their camera. And he claims in the comments section that it worked fine afterward, but if you want to insist that he's just a criminal showering a camera and lens prior to re-sale be my guest. And the other one has ads because it wasn't the original poster of the video, just someone reposting it in hopes of capitalizing on the videos familiarity and that people might follow the url.

What exactly does the D300 video prove? For all we know the D300 wasn't working when the guy showered it. We never see him turn it on or use it afterwards either. He probably sold the lens as never been used! That wedding video looks staged too. I doubt it's real. Notice the ad links.

NikoDoby said:
What's the worst that could happen to an SLR? The film gets wet? In that respect film cameras will always have an advantage in adverse environments. You don't have to worry about getting the processor, motherboard or LCD screen internals wet.

There are some electronics still in a film SLR though right?

PB PM said:
That was one of the things I worried about with the D300 and grip, getting water between them, thus leading to water getting into the D300's electronic contacts between the grip and the camera. Took them apart after shooting in the rain/snow for 15 minutes, no water got in between. I found that interesting because I held my camera lens mount down, to prevent water getting into the mount, since my 300mm F4 AF-S does not have a moisture seal. I always make sure I tighten the grip as much as possible, to help avoid that problem.

Holding it down, but not dangling on the strap right? The heavy lens might warp the mounting plate.

That was one of the things I worried about with the D300 and grip, getting water between them, thus leading to water getting into the D300's electronic contacts between the grip and the camera. Took them apart after shooting in the rain/snow for 15 minutes, no water got in between. I found that interesting because I held my camera lens mount down, to prevent water getting into the mount, since my 300mm F4 AF-S does not have a moisture seal. I always make sure I tighten the grip as much as possible, to help avoid that problem.

You never heard about of all those canon 5Ds that died suddenly on an Antarctic cruise did you? They were only in very very light drizzle and had a very high failure rate among the large group that was using canons. The Nikon's in the group didn't have a single failure.

In a summary session on the last day at the Peninsula I asked everyone to report on any equipment failures. Here's the tally.

The top LCD on a 5D MKII spontaneously cracked; Another 5D MKII had a jambed on lens caused by a loose screw, a 1Ds MKIII reported intermittent problems; a 1D MKIII kept reporting Error 99; one Hasselblad reported electronic lens connection problems; two Canon G9's failed (no G10s had any reported problems), and a Nikon 80-400mm lens came apart. No Nikon bodies (mostly D700s) failed in any way.

The largest group of failures through were among the Canon 5D MKIIs. Of the 26 samples of this camera onboard, one quarter (six) failed at one time or another, and while three recovered, the other three never did. In all cases it appeared to be water or humidity damage. Of particular concern were two cameras which stopped working while completely protected within Kata rain covers during a light rain ashore. They came back to life the following day though and were mostly fine for the rest of the trip, but one died permenently just before the end of our voyage.

Several people noted that when returning to the ship after working in light rain 5D MKIIs with vertical battery grips tended to collect water in between the grip and the base – something that may have been the cause of some of the failures.

What's the worst that could happen to an SLR? The film gets wet? In that respect film cameras will always have an advantage in adverse environments. You don't have to worry about getting the processor, motherboard or LCD screen internals wet.

Does seem strange doesn't it? I often use my cameras in over the rated humidity, don't have a choice, considering how much it rains in Vancouver. ;-) If you look at manuals from other brands they say the same thing, so it is nothing out of the ordinary.

The reason for that is that the leads on a circuit board can short under said conditions. Does not mean they will though.

PB PM said:
... the camera manuals say operating conditions of less than 89% humidity, non-condensing,(even the D300 and D700), which means not in rainy or excessively foggy weather, right off the bat.

Uh Oh !! Down here (south Louisiana), it's often above 89% humidity when I'm shooting with my D300. No problems yet, that I'm aware of, with moisture penetration. (I do not change lenses in those conditions.)